×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Guard Denied Qualified Immunity in Prisoner's Assault
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed denial of summary
judgment on qualified immunity grounds by a California federal district
court to a lieutenant at the California Men's Colony in a case where a
prisoner was assaulted by his cellmate.
Michael McKinney, a prisoner at the California Men's Colony, was
threatened with physical harm by his cellmate. He reported the threat to
Lieutenant J. Peters and requested a cell transfer, which Peters refused.
McKinney later was assaulted by his cellmate.
McKinney sued Peters under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming that Peters violated
his Eighth Amendment right to protection from harm. Peters moved for
summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The district court denied
the motion and Peters appealed.
Taking the facts alleged in the light most favorable to McKinney, and
analyzing Peters' motion under the standard of Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S.
194, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the appeals court held
qualified immunity was not warranted. Peters knew of the threat to
McKinney. McKinney requested that Peters move him out of harm's way.
Peters refused the request. McKinney was harmed. McKinney had a clearly
established right to a cell transfer to protect him from harm. Peters'
conduct was unreasonable and, on the facts alleged, violated McKinney's
Eighth Amendment rights.
The district court's denial of qualified immunity was affirmed. This was
not a ruling on the merits of the claim. This case is published in the
Federal Appendix and is subject to rules governing unpublished cases. See:
McKinney v. Peters, 58 Fed. Appx. 285 (9th Cir. 2003).
judgment on qualified immunity grounds by a California federal district
court to a lieutenant at the California Men's Colony in a case where a
prisoner was assaulted by his cellmate.
Michael McKinney, a prisoner at the California Men's Colony, was
threatened with physical harm by his cellmate. He reported the threat to
Lieutenant J. Peters and requested a cell transfer, which Peters refused.
McKinney later was assaulted by his cellmate.
McKinney sued Peters under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming that Peters violated
his Eighth Amendment right to protection from harm. Peters moved for
summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The district court denied
the motion and Peters appealed.
Taking the facts alleged in the light most favorable to McKinney, and
analyzing Peters' motion under the standard of Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S.
194, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the appeals court held
qualified immunity was not warranted. Peters knew of the threat to
McKinney. McKinney requested that Peters move him out of harm's way.
Peters refused the request. McKinney was harmed. McKinney had a clearly
established right to a cell transfer to protect him from harm. Peters'
conduct was unreasonable and, on the facts alleged, violated McKinney's
Eighth Amendment rights.
The district court's denial of qualified immunity was affirmed. This was
not a ruling on the merits of the claim. This case is published in the
Federal Appendix and is subject to rules governing unpublished cases. See:
McKinney v. Peters, 58 Fed. Appx. 285 (9th Cir. 2003).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
McKinney v. Peters
| Year | 2003 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 58 Fed.Appx. 284 (9th Cir. 2003). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
58 Fed.Appx. 284, 2003 WL 344192 (C.A.9 (Cal.))
This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Michael J. McKINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
J. PETERS, Lieutenant, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-55691.
D.C. No. CV-97-07448-AHM.
Submitted Feb. 7, 2003.FN*
FN* This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.
See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
Decided Feb. 11, 2003.
*284 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding.
Before D.W. NELSON, WARDLAW and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
*285 MEMORANDUM FN**
FN** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**1 Michael McKinney ("McKinney") filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his civil rights were violated when Peters, a corrections lieutenant at the California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo, failed to grant his request for a cell transfer despite an allegedly imminent threat of attack by his cellmate. The cellmate later attacked McKinney. Peters moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied this motion; Peters brings an interlocutory appeal challenging that denial. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292, and we affirm.
We review de novo "the district court's determination on summary judgment that [Peters] cannot invoke qualified immunity as a bar to civil litigation." Martinez v. City of Oxnard, 270 F.3d 852, 855 (9th Cir.2001). In evaluating whether Peters is entitled to qualified immunity, we must accept as true the facts as McKinney alleges they exist, looking only to his complaint. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001); Martinez, 270 F.3d at 855.
We must answer "this threshold question: Taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right?" Saucier, 533 U.S. at 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (quoting Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991)). Then, "if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties' submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established." Id. at 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151.
Two years before the attack on McKinney, the Supreme Court held that "[a] prison official's 'deliberate indifference' to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the Eighth Amendment." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).
McKinney's complaint and the attached exhibits allege (1) an objectively substantial risk of serious harm (2) of which Peters was subjectively aware but chose to disregard. See Id. at 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970; Estate of Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir.2002). Moreover, assuming the facts alleged as true, McKinney's right to a cell transfer was clearly established in this case, and "it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation [Peters] confronted." Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151.
AFFIRMED.
This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Michael J. McKINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
J. PETERS, Lieutenant, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-55691.
D.C. No. CV-97-07448-AHM.
Submitted Feb. 7, 2003.FN*
FN* This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.
See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
Decided Feb. 11, 2003.
*284 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding.
Before D.W. NELSON, WARDLAW and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
*285 MEMORANDUM FN**
FN** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**1 Michael McKinney ("McKinney") filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his civil rights were violated when Peters, a corrections lieutenant at the California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo, failed to grant his request for a cell transfer despite an allegedly imminent threat of attack by his cellmate. The cellmate later attacked McKinney. Peters moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied this motion; Peters brings an interlocutory appeal challenging that denial. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292, and we affirm.
We review de novo "the district court's determination on summary judgment that [Peters] cannot invoke qualified immunity as a bar to civil litigation." Martinez v. City of Oxnard, 270 F.3d 852, 855 (9th Cir.2001). In evaluating whether Peters is entitled to qualified immunity, we must accept as true the facts as McKinney alleges they exist, looking only to his complaint. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001); Martinez, 270 F.3d at 855.
We must answer "this threshold question: Taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right?" Saucier, 533 U.S. at 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (quoting Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991)). Then, "if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties' submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established." Id. at 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151.
Two years before the attack on McKinney, the Supreme Court held that "[a] prison official's 'deliberate indifference' to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the Eighth Amendment." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).
McKinney's complaint and the attached exhibits allege (1) an objectively substantial risk of serious harm (2) of which Peters was subjectively aware but chose to disregard. See Id. at 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970; Estate of Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir.2002). Moreover, assuming the facts alleged as true, McKinney's right to a cell transfer was clearly established in this case, and "it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation [Peters] confronted." Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151.
AFFIRMED.